Commonwealth v. Gonsalves

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Commonwealth v. Gonsalves

785 N.E.2d 1276, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 925, 2003 Mass. App. LEXIS 427

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedApril 8, 2003

DocketNo. 02-P-611

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 785 N.E.2d 1276 (Commonwealth v. Gonsalves) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Commonwealth v. Gonsalves, 785 N.E.2d 1276, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 925, 2003 Mass. App. LEXIS 427 (Mass. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that in the course of his plea colloquy, he should have been advised of the basic differences between a trial by jury and a trial to a judge alone, a so-called bench trial.

Despite the fine argument of able appellate counsel, such information need not be given to a defendant for the simple reason that it is irrelevant to the decision to plead guilty. A defendant must be informed of his so-called “intratrial” rights, i.e., “the right to trial, the right to confront one’s accusers, and the privilege against self-incrimination.” Commonwealth v. Duquette, 386 Mass. 834, 841 (1982). There is no question the defendant here was so informed. The differences between a bench trial and a jury trial fall outside the scope of these intra-trial rights.

Further, there simply is no causal nexus between the plea colloquy’s alleged shortcomings and the defendant’s decision to forgo a trial. See Commonwealth [926]*926v. Correa, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 714, 718 (1997) (where defendant’s collateral attack on guilty plea is based on omissions in colloquy relating to defendant’s intra-trial rights, defendant must show that alleged omission made difference in decision to plead guilty). The strategic considerations underpinning a decision to be tried either to a judge or a jury do not inform the quite distinct decision whether to proceed to trial at all.

Adam T. Narris, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Robert L. Sheketoff for the defendant.

Order denying motion to withdraw guilty plea and for a new trial affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The defendant appeals the denial of his motion to withdraw his guilty plea, arguing that in the course of his plea colloquy, he should have been advised of the basic differences between a trial by jury and a trial to a judge alone, a so-called bench trial.

Despite the fine argument of able appellate counsel, such information need not be given to a defendant for the simple reason that it is irrelevant to the decision to plead guilty. A defendant must be informed of his so-called “intratrial” rights, i.e., “the right to trial, the right to confront one’s accusers, and the privilege against self-incrimination.” Commonwealth v. Duquette, 386 Mass. 834, 841 (1982). There is no question the defendant here was so informed. The differences between a bench trial and a jury trial fall outside the scope of these intra-trial rights.

Further, there simply is no causal nexus between the plea colloquy’s alleged shortcomings and the defendant’s decision to forgo a trial. See Commonwealth [926]*926v. Correa, 43 Mass. App. Ct. 714, 718 (1997) (where defendant’s collateral attack on guilty plea is based on omissions in colloquy relating to defendant’s intra-trial rights, defendant must show that alleged omission made difference in decision to plead guilty). The strategic considerations underpinning a decision to be tried either to a judge or a jury do not inform the quite distinct decision whether to proceed to trial at all.

Adam T. Narris, Assistant District Attorney, for the Commonwealth. Robert L. Sheketoff for the defendant.

Order denying motion to withdraw guilty plea and for a new trial affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

785 N.E.2d 1276, 57 Mass. App. Ct. 925, 2003 Mass. App. LEXIS 427, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/commonwealth-v-gonsalves-massappct-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack